Possible to Become FM, IM, or GM without Coaching or Reading Books?

Are there any examples of self-taught players, who didn't need to read books or get coaching to become a master leve player?

Or is it that you pretty much have to get "help" to get that good and into the higher levels?

Of course it's possible. 

It's also possible to become a physicist and leading mathematician without reading any physics or math books but figuring everything out yourself. Good luck with that. 

If we have seen futher it is because we are standing on the sholders of giants.

Well, would you categorize watching videos the same as reading books?  If it is just not reading books and getting lessons then of course there probably are today giving other resources on the internet.

Also Rob3rt is right of course, in the past there have.

Thanks for that Sir Newton!

Also Einstein

Yea, also Twpsyn.  Only difference is Newton said it first.

Well I'm in good company.  I didn't say it was a theoretical novelty.

This might be my favorite topic I've seen so far. I wish we could do away with the cumulative knowledge aspect of chess. If a player came along who hadn't read a single chess book in his or her life and could compete with the best of them, they would instantly be my favorite. Ironically enough, Fischer is one of my favs, even though he studied like a mad man. I think he saw the way everyone else thought and approached the game, and was still able to shove it aside and reinvent the game. Most others seem to just be looking for the "best" move, and mimic a computer. That's why they study.

I take it this is your ghost account that you use just to mess around.  Everybody at chess.com knows that titled players have those.

Didn't you know?  Titled players on chess.com have two accounts one whith there title displayed and one without.  Yes, I will need a name...

This is the reason I neglect studying openings: I would rather have the skill that created those openings to begin with than to regurgitate what's in the book. That's why I am only slightly familiar with three openings, one for white and two for black.  And my book knowledge goes no further than 5 moves in either of them.

Succeed as far as competing - true. However, it is figuring these things out that I find enjoyable. Besides, I am only a 1500 player. And someone on my level shouldn't be too concerned with learning opening theory as much as other elements (such as mate patterns, tactics, etc.)

I don't expect to rediscover 500 years of chess history. But to clarify, I have played for for a long time, as black, Nf6 - g6 - Bg7 - 0-0 and not knowing this was commonly seen in the KID or Sicilian lines (at the time I did not know what these opening were). I simply saw this was a good defense.

I also discovered that doubled rooks on an open file is quite strong, and that two bishops working together is very strong in the end game. I also saw that playing 1.e4 activated white's Q and LSB; the reason I only played 1.e4 until three years ago. Now, I play 1.d4 almost 100% of the time.

Because I like trying to figure out chess, by the time I'm ready to really study openings, I'm thinking it will fairly easy (compared to approaching opening study without such a foundation).

e4 doesn't "activate white's Q" in any way. Noticing a possible move isn't a discovery. 

Keep dreaming, you will find openings as hard as everyone else.

Spaghettio - "

e4 doesn't "activate white's Q" in any way. Noticing a possible move isn't a discovery. 

Keep dreaming, you will find openings as hard as everyone else."

I was referring to the two diagonals the e-pawn opens when that pawn is moved forward: one for the Queen and one for the King's Bishop. I think any avid chess player would see the open diagonals that the Q and King's B influence as a result of moving that pawn.

Response to you second comment: It is not a "possible move" that I discovered. But the fact that "doubled rooks on an open file is quite strong, and that two bishops working together is very strong in the end game." This is something that MANY players I new at that time (many years ago) did not realize.

Now, in response to your third comment: Openings have various difficulties, that is obvious. It should also be obvious that each opening is learned at the speed/ease at which one's intellect allows. It also follows that if one has studied other elements of the game, that person would have an advantage when studying openings over one who approaches opening theory with little to no knowledge of such elements. I never said that openings will be easy. I said I think they "will fairly easy (compared to...." Notice the comparison I made.

Oh, and I guess I should answer the OP's post to be on topic. I need to study chess like crazy if you want to compete in those upper levels.

@op

its odd to say the "self-taught" chess players don't read books?   for example,  If I tried to become a doctor , and read books, perhaps a video or so and did lots of practicing medecine

without becoming somebodies student- wouldn't I be "self-taught"?

now, what would say about a doctor that read No books at All?  how good could that doctor be?

in the end, a doctor that read everything he could, went to medical school and got a proper education- would be the most informed doctor right?  if you had cancer (or another lethal condition) isn't that the doctor you would want??

and certainly when we look at the top players, the best players at chess- it seems to me that most are very well educated. having read a lot of books, played a lots of games and done a lot of lessons with a coach.

why does that surpise people? and even more strangely why does that make people dissapointed?? 

very talented people+ superior training = peak performance

seems like common sense to me.  from the POV of a player- as you get stronger and more serious you look for good books and good teaching, so you can be as much as your talent will allow.....

^ very talented people+ superior training = peak performance

Excellent response, patzer.

akafett I read your post very well. If you choose to ignore me that's your business but in my opinion your claims and conclusions are unjustifiable and not accurate and you can reason out all you want about what "follows" but it's not always going to be substantially true.  

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
--  Sir Isaac Newton

The same logic applies in chess.